[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: The Lost Child...



>         Honestly, do you think anyone went to see a movie about dinosaurs 
> running rampant for a lecture on chaos theory and the nitty gritty of 
> paleontology? 

     Then why do they have scenes where nothing more exiting happens then
the characters sitting around the dinner table or "mission control" having
deep, insightful conversation?  That didn't exite me, sorry to be such a
wet blanket.

>         No, but what is your point? I have worked with directors who 
> couldn't give a damn about what is documented and correct. If it didn't fit 
> his preconceived notion of what a shot should look like, he shot the scene 
> how he wanted it, authenticity be damned. At least Speilberg listened. So in 
> answer to your question, no. In the same way, would "Glory" or "Apollo 13" 
> be as real or authentic if they didn't have historical and (in the case of 
> Apollo 13) NASA consultants on board to tell them what is right and wrong? No.

       In the case of those particular movies, I think the authenticity
and believable portrayal of events which were emotionally stimulating
and/or fascinating in thier own right was more instrumental toward thier
appeal then little creative embellishments.

>         You seem to be upset about the central conceit of the movie; that 
> dinosaurs could be brought to life using strands of DNA extracted from 
> insects trapped in amber.

     I think the best science fiction uses the minimum number of
innacuracies required to get the story going (like extracting DNA from
insects in amber) and then makes the rest as real as possible.  I think
stories that trade absurd embellishment for realism have made a better
deal, because the latter is more convincing.  If you want to say something
like "most of the public doesn't know they are inaccuracies, so it works
for them", I guess that is just my fault for being more knowledgable about
certain things.  Silly me.   

>         If it helps, the creatures in the movie and book aren't really 
> dinosaurs. They're dinosaur/modern amphibian hybrids, and their 
> uncharacteristic behavior and appearance are mutations.

     Ah-haaaaaaa! So THAT'S it!
     All right, lets assume for the moment that Speilberg's pronouncements
of perfect accuracy were entirely commercially motivated.  If that is
true, the important point is this: it got people into the theatres.  If
your assesment of Speilberg's motivations are correct, then the promise of
accuracy was as instrumental for Jurassic Park's success as its cheap
thrill embellishments.  And despite claims to the contrary, I think that
chopping of Dilophosaurus's frill or replacing the Velociraptors with
slightly stupider and smaller Deinonychus (presumably ones that would
mob you or cooperatively pull you down in a group like wild dogs, woof
woof) or keeping the Brachiosaurus's feet on the ground would have
diminished the exitement of the film not a whit.  You could still have
T.rex chasing jeeps at 15mph (someone actually sat down with the footage
of the chase and worked the speed out, I hear), people joining the food
chain in horrible ways, and the spectacle of animals that are remarkable
for thier sheer size and strangeness.  And best of all, it really WOULD be
real.

LN Jeff, hopeless realist
O-